ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2021
Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An Evidence-Informed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspective on patient and non-academic partner engagement for the responsible integration of large language models in health chatbots.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- HTA responsiveness to today's challenges to health systems: a responsible innovation in health perspective.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- A decision-making tool for navigating extracellular vesicle research and product development.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2024Article
- Responsible coordination of municipal health and care services for individuals with serious mental illness: a participatory qualitative study with service users and professionals.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Integrating ethics in AI development: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- To What Extent Can Digital Health Technologies Comply With the Principles of Responsible Innovation? Practice-and Policy-Oriented Research Insights Regarding an Organisational and Systemic Issue.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive, Valid, and Reliable Tool to Assess the Degree of Responsibility of Digital Health Solutions That Operate With or Without Artificial Intelligence: 3-Phase Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Responsible innovation in health and health system sustainability: Insights from health innovators' views and practices.Health services management research · 2022Article
- Collective health research assessment: developing a tool to measure the impact of multistakeholder research initiatives.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Guiding Pay-As-You-Live Health Insurance Models Toward Responsible Innovation in Health.Journal of participatory medicine · 2020Article
- Stakeholder Perspectives on the Responsible Innovation in Health Framework for Addressing Stigma-Based Health Inequalities Among People Who Stutter.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResponsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system.
methodsWe conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n=25). Following the Tool's 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study's database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet's AC) and the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool's application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics.
resultsOur findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, "almost perfect" agreement for 7 assessment attributes, "substantial" agreement for 2 attributes and "almost perfect" agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While "Almost all RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), "Many RIH features" were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and "Few RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points).
conclusionBy confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool's reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.